Paladin NPCs Played by a DM

[AnimeTheCat]

So, there's a thread going on about a player requesting help against a high level paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?555859-Help-vs-higher-level-paladin). One poster (quoted below) said something about DMs playing paladins and using them as jaded authority figures. I was wondering how common this is encoutered by players, and how commonly DMs catch themselves doing this (if at all). The quote that got me thinking was:



Always be wary when a DM is running a Paladin, because sometimes they try to use them as a moral authority, even when they don't realise their logic is shaky. Also, as always, your mileage may vary, depending on your group, DM, and other factors.

Granted, the above is just a short stub of a larger quote, but the above is the relevant part. I know that when I use paladins in my game (at least vanilla paladins) I really try to make them overly heroic. I guess sometimes it can come across as cartoony or overly dramatic, but there's just something satisfying about all the paladins in a temple of Heironeous donning armor and taking up the sword to ride out against impossible odds. They know their chances of survival are slim, but that's what they do right? Even when they aren't fighting evil, I like to use them as figures who support the law, but also are merciful. For instance, in a strange game I DMd where the party all started off as NPC classes, one of the players played a commoner who eventually became a rogue. They stole a loaf of bread and were caught by a paladin. Instead of escorting them to the halls of justice I had the paladin pay the baker, interceded to the judge on the player's behalf, and escort the player to the temple where they could have the chance to repent and possibly continue living a good and law abiding life (that didn't happen... but it was the hope and mercy that I tried to get across). I, personally, don't feel that such actions would be at all out of line for a Paladin. What do others think of that? Was I doing a good enough job keeping the paladin as an accurate morality figure, or did I too fall victim to using shaky logic? Just curious.

What other things have DMs done that players have seen (good or bad) when using paladins, and what have you as DMs done and maybe later caught yourself doing with Paladins?

[Seto]

Always be wary when a DM is running a Paladin, because sometimes they try to use them as a moral authority, even when they don't realise their logic is shaky. Also, as always, your mileage may vary, depending on your group, DM, and other factors.

Was I doing a good enough job keeping the paladin as an accurate morality figure, or did I too fall victim to using shaky logic? Just curious.
(emphasis mine)
A Paladin should be a morality figure: they're paragons, trying to embody the ideals of Good (and Law). Whether they should be a moral authority is a different question, in no small part due to the fact that a moral authority is someone that is recognized as such and sought out by people who seek betterment. I suspect the problem described in Rin's quote is Paladins imposed by the DM as moral compasses to players who don't particularly want or need moral guidance.

Your question seems more broad, as it pertains to how NPC Paladins should be represented by DMs, and how accurate that is. I identify two different potential problems:

1- A Paladin who holds others to the same standards as they hold themselves. A Paladin's standards are high. It's essentially what I was describing: an NPC trying to tell the party how to behave can get annoying fast. However, such a Paladin can be, using your words, an accurate morality figure. It doesn't have "shaky logic". There's nothing wrong with the character per se, it's entirely believable (especially if they're very Lawful). And if the PCs don't mind and actually want guidance (or if they do mind but have the option to tell the Paladin to f*** off), it's perfectly fine. The problem arises when the DM uses the character in a hamfisted way to try to control PC's behaviors, even though the players want none of it and resent it. It's an out-of-game problem.

2- A Paladin who doesn't hold themselves to the standards they claim to have. That one is the bigger problem. The number one worst flaw a Paladin can have is hypocrisy. If a Paladin does nothing but lecture people on Good and Law, but doesn't really act, he's guaranteed to get on everyone's nerves. That one does have "shaky logic", and it's a character problem. They're not "an accurate morality figure", neither should they be seen as a moral authority. By contrast, if they lead by example, even if they're not a very logical person and can't coherently explain their morality in terms of an abstract system, they're true Paladins, even if they're otherwise preachy.

So the worst way a DM can play a Paladin is to only use them to convey morality talking points and preach to the players how they should act. If a DM makes their Paladin actually be heroic and lead by example, then it's a well-played character, BUT there might remain an out-of-character problem if the DM put them there to try to "teach" the PCs the right way to play.

In your own example from your game, you fall victim to neither of the problems. Your Paladin actually acted, didn't preach, and gave an example of understanding and fairness that the PC should remember, even if they don't become LG themselves. Kudos, I think you played your NPC well.

[Kish]

(looks at thread title)

I think a paladin could potentially run a game as well or as badly as anyone else. There is, stereotypes aside, nothing in the paladin code about lack of imagination, or even about not getting into playing evil, as long as it's just playing.

Oh, that's not what this thread is about?

[AnimeTheCat]

(looks at thread title)

I think a paladin could potentially run a game as well or as badly as anyone else. There is, stereotypes aside, nothing in the paladin code about lack of imagination, or even about not getting into playing evil, as long as it's just playing.

Oh, that's not what this thread is about?

Haha, I see what you did there. I'll see if I can change the title to make it a bit more accurate.

[Karl Aegis]

Generally speaking, there is no difference between a paladin and someone following the paladin's code until they start casting paladin spells. Just try to not be on the receiving end of a casting of Door to Great Evil.

[BassoonHero]

I don't think that paladins are inherently problematic, whether PC or NPC. Rather, they're a magnet and a magnifier for the general problems of the alignment system and, all too often, a lightning rod for out-of-game disagreements.

I'll quote myself here:


The problem here is that the D&D 3.5 alignment system defines "Good" and "Evil" strictly but not clearly. When dealing with any issue more complex than "protect innocent people" versus "murder innocent people", you're basically on your own (as a player or DM). But the book assumes that whatever the correct answer is, that answer is an absolute moral fact, and the DM is expected to impose mechanical consequences accordingly.

As a result, roleplaying around alignment-based mechanics is inevitably a source of tension and often a source of out-of-game conflict. This tension stems not from the players' investment in their characters' decisions, but in the players' disconnection from the world in which they live. Whether an action is Good or Evil is an objective property of the characters' world, but from a metagame level that objective property is determined by highly subjective and often-contentious interpretation. This leads to situations in which characters are punished because their players lack information that the characters must surely possess.

It doesn't really help to say that the characters don't know either. For instance, to say that an act is good or evil depending on its consequences, regardless of the characters' knowledge of those consequences, leads inevitably to unfair "traps". This is one of the failure modes of the paladin's code: the character does something that seems to be a Good act, but because of external factors the player didn't know, it's deemed Evil instead, and the paladin loses their powers. The usual advice is that players shouldn't ever play a paladin in such a game. Grappling with alignment as a player in such a system is like arguing with a rules lawyer when you haven't read the books: you're going to lose, you won't really understand why, and you're not going to enjoy it.

As an aside, I do think that you could make a reasonable game out of such a system, though it might look very different from the "standard" high fantasy setting. The gods wrote the laws of morality at the beginning of time, and they remain in full effect -- but mortals possess them only in fragmentary translations. In mortal comprehension, the laws seem capricious and unfair, but to reject them carries yet greater penalties. Will they ally themselves unquestionably with the forces of Good, no matter how awful the consequences may sometimes seem, or will they accept the label of Evil and all of the travails and approbation that go with it? The natural dramatic conclusion for this game would be the overthrow of the ancient gods and their inscrutable dictates. Now, replace "ancient gods" with "the DM", and you have a problem!

A strict, inflexible interpretation of D&D's absolute morality can ruin good in-character drama, and worse, it can shift that drama out-of-character. Volumes have been written on the various natures of dramatic conflict. There's nothing wrong with a classic struggle of Good versus Evil. But drama is about choice; without choice, there is no agency, and without agency, there is no tension. If the outcome doesn't depends on the characters' choices, then it's either random or predetermined, and neither is interesting.

Moral drama, then, is about moral choice. The simplest, most archetypical example is the choice between good and evil. But it's hard to make this work in an RPG. The players probably want to be the good guys, and if they don't, they're probably not going to change their minds. Sometimes, a DM tries to create drama by disguising which choice is which, but this robs the choice of meaning and thus the players of agency. If there is ambiguity, it must be genuine, not forced. That is, it must be a choice between two options that are distinct, but equally good. An inflexible, absolute system of morality forbids such choices; it's a rule of the universe that there must be an objectively best answer. This is moral railroading. The effects of this can be seen in modern video game RPGs with a "moral choice" system. Do you do the Good thing or the Bad thing? Mass Effect 3 famously tried to subvert this dichotomy; rarely has a fandom ever been so united as was the Mass Effect fandom in hating that ending.

You have two options, but their not Good and Evil. Instead, both options destroy the universe as you know it.

In this universe, a paladin is a character who doesn't make choices -- not important ones. As a player character, this turns alignment into a straightjacket and the moral railroad into a plot railroad. Any deviation from the right answer must be punished. An important subcase is one where the paladin's player is the one imposing the absolutist interpretation. This is the "Lawful Stupid" paladin who repeatedly acts in ways harmful to the party and insists that they have no other choice. No one wants to play with that character. No one wants to play with that player.

Let's leave paladins and even alignment aside for a moment. Suppose that there is a powerful NPC who is utterly self-righteous. This NPC claims ultimate moral authority: their actions are always beyond reproach, their commands are always correct, and any disagreement is necessarily misinformed at best or malicious at worst. This NPC is recognized widely as an authority figure, and they wield this authority with the subtlety of... well, a high-level D&D character. What will the players think of this NPC? No need to wonder; the players will invariably find that NPC to be infuriating, obnoxious, and a general thorn in their side. Depending on the circumstances, they might be nominally aligned with this NPC, but they'll look forward to the day when they can put the self-important tyrant in their proper place.

Now add an absolutist interpretation of alignment and make this NPC a paladin. Now, their dictates carry the full weight of DM sanction. When the players inevitable run afoul of the NPC in some way, their resentment toward the NPC will rightly carry over to the DM. But the players have no escape. Even if they depose, kill, or otherwise disempower the NPC, the universe itself is arrayed against them, and the DM explicitly sides with the universe. This will be a miserable gaming experience.

All this may seem rather dire, but this is a solvable problem, and you don't need to throw away the entire alignment system to do it. A universe that contains absolute Good and Evil may nevertheless contain many manifestations of each. The existence of easy moral questions (do we rescue the stolen children before the orcs eat them?) does not preclude the existence of hard moral questions (do we overthrow the corrupt kingdom even though many will die in the war?). Even a paladin has moral choices to make. A paladin who travels with a diverse part of adventurers must accept that the party won't always pursue what the paladin believes to be the greatest good; the paladin must trust that the greatest good is nevertheless best pursued with their help than without it. And an NPC paladin might still be a pompous, inflexible pain in the neck, as long as the DM doesn't insist that the party agree with them.

On a side note, I'm not generally a fan of paladin codes. They're usually a vague definition of Lawful Good as seen through a pile of fantasy cliches and a thirdhand notion of chivalry. The rules are typically incoherent, annoying the player with restrictions without providing a useful framework for character actions. When I do need an explicit code, I tend to use the following:


Protect the innocent.
Lead by example.
Always give people the chance to do the right thing.

[AnimeTheCat]

I don't think that paladins are inherently problematic, whether PC or NPC. Rather, they're a magnet and a magnifier for the general problems of the alignment system and, all too often, a lightning rod for out-of-game disagreements.

I'll quote myself here:



A strict, inflexible interpretation of D&D's absolute morality can ruin good in-character drama, and worse, it can shift that drama out-of-character. Volumes have been written on the various natures of dramatic conflict. There's nothing wrong with a classic struggle of Good versus Evil. But drama is about choice; without choice, there is no agency, and without agency, there is no tension. If the outcome doesn't depends on the characters' choices, then it's either random or predetermined, and neither is interesting.

Moral drama, then, is about moral choice. The simplest, most archetypical example is the choice between good and evil. But it's hard to make this work in an RPG. The players probably want to be the good guys, and if they don't, they're probably not going to change their minds. Sometimes, a DM tries to create drama by disguising which choice is which, but this robs the choice of meaning and thus the players of agency. If there is ambiguity, it must be genuine, not forced. That is, it must be a choice between two options that are distinct, but equally good. An inflexible, absolute system of morality forbids such choices; it's a rule of the universe that there must be an objectively best answer. This is moral railroading. The effects of this can be seen in modern video game RPGs with a "moral choice" system. Do you do the Good thing or the Bad thing? Mass Effect 3 famously tried to subvert this dichotomy; rarely has a fandom ever been so united as was the Mass Effect fandom in hating that ending.

You have two options, but their not Good and Evil. Instead, both options destroy the universe as you know it.

In this universe, a paladin is a character who doesn't make choices -- not important ones. As a player character, this turns alignment into a straightjacket and the moral railroad into a plot railroad. Any deviation from the right answer must be punished. An important subcase is one where the paladin's player is the one imposing the absolutist interpretation. This is the "Lawful Stupid" paladin who repeatedly acts in ways harmful to the party and insists that they have no other choice. No one wants to play with that character. No one wants to play with that player.

Let's leave paladins and even alignment aside for a moment. Suppose that there is a powerful NPC who is utterly self-righteous. This NPC claims ultimate moral authority: their actions are always beyond reproach, their commands are always correct, and any disagreement is necessarily misinformed at best or malicious at worst. This NPC is recognized widely as an authority figure, and they wield this authority with the subtlety of... well, a high-level D&D character. What will the players think of this NPC? No need to wonder; the players will invariably find that NPC to be infuriating, obnoxious, and a general thorn in their side. Depending on the circumstances, they might be nominally aligned with this NPC, but they'll look forward to the day when they can put the self-important tyrant in their proper place.

Now add an absolutist interpretation of alignment and make this NPC a paladin. Now, their dictates carry the full weight of DM sanction. When the players inevitable run afoul of the NPC in some way, their resentment toward the NPC will rightly carry over to the DM. But the players have no escape. Even if they depose, kill, or otherwise disempower the NPC, the universe itself is arrayed against them, and the DM explicitly sides with the universe. This will be a miserable gaming experience.

All this may seem rather dire, but this is a solvable problem, and you don't need to throw away the entire alignment system to do it. A universe that contains absolute Good and Evil may nevertheless contain many manifestations of each. The existence of easy moral questions (do we rescue the stolen children before the orcs eat them?) does not preclude the existence of hard moral questions (do we overthrow the corrupt kingdom even though many will die in the war?). Even a paladin has moral choices to make. A paladin who travels with a diverse part of adventurers must accept that the party won't always pursue what the paladin believes to be the greatest good; the paladin must trust that the greatest good is nevertheless best pursued with their help than without it. And an NPC paladin might still be a pompous, inflexible pain in the neck, as long as the DM doesn't insist that the party agree with them.

On a side note, I'm not generally a fan of paladin codes. They're usually a vague definition of Lawful Good as seen through a pile of fantasy cliches and a thirdhand notion of chivalry. The rules are typically incoherent, annoying the player with restrictions without providing a useful framework for character actions. When I do need an explicit code, I tend to use the following:


Protect the innocent.
Lead by example.
Always give people the chance to do the right thing.


Thanks for the design and game philosophy. I appreciate it, lots of good info and food for thought. Have you ever experienced any of the things you referenced. Either as a player having a DM that was an example, or you as a DM being an example of any of it? Anecdotal experiences appreciated! I feel like these kinds of subjects are better captured through experience rather than thought or word.